S. R. PANDIT Vs. W. R. PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant desires leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council against the judgment and decree of Findlay, J.C. dated 8th October 1927 in first Appeal No. 64 of 1926.

(2.) IT is necessary here to repeat the facts of the last-mentioned case. As is apparent from the judgment, the 'suit was one for village profits for three years by a recorded eosharer of mouza Dhaba against the present applicant who was the duly recorded lambardar. As is apparent from para. 7 of Findlay, J.C.'s judgment the case for the village profits, as it was, could have been decided purely on the question of whether these profits were due or not due, the parties admittedly being the recorded cosharers and the present defendant-applicant being the lambardar. The Judge of the first Court had, however, recorded findings on many other questions concerning the whole family property and in para. 7 of his judgment Findlay, J.C., also considered these matters in the hope that the said findings might restrict. If not prevent, further litigation between the parties. At the same time, the judgment in question made it clear that these findings were not, in reality, necessary for the decision of the suit which was in essence and in reality, purely one for three years' profits of the village in question.

(3.) IT has next been urged that, in any event, the decree or final order involves, directly or indirectly, property worth Rs.10,000 or over, and we have been referred to the decision in Sri Kishan Lal v. Kashmiro [1913] 35 All. 445 in this connexion. Even if we accept that decision as correct exposition of the law, it is obvious that, for the reason above mentioned, findings given on the questions of reunion, the alleged will by the father of the parties, the family settlement and the like were not in reality, essential for the decision of the suit in question. From this point of view, therefore, it cannot be said that the decree or final order necessarily involves a claim or question relating to property worth Rs.10,000 or over. The remaining property belonging to the family is, in reality, not involved at all in the present suit which was tried in a Court of Subordinate Judge with a jurisdiction limited to Rs.10,000 only. It is not in dispute that the value of the estate or even of the share which either party to this proceeding may lay claim to would be worth more than Rs.10,000. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the decision of the case by this Court in any way, necessarily involves the remaining question of the property.